Do you agree that the hallmarks of a great marketer include being curious and willing to challenge received wisdom? If so, it’s in that vein you should read ‘The Road to Hell’ by Nick Asbury.
It is an organised and coherent counter argument to the prevailing view in marketing that brands should have Purpose (capital P) beyond making profit.
Purpose – as most marketers will already know – means aligning the brand with ‘higher order’ environmental, political, or social causes. The goal is to put the brand ‘in service’ of society.
The theory is that if brands have clear values that reflect those of their buyers or prospective consumers, people will actively choose them over others that either have no clear position or conflicting values.
Purpose really matters because it can influence what products are developed & sold; how marketing budgets are deployed; the criteria by which business decisions are made and marketing activity is evaluated; and it acts as the moral compass against which employees orientate themselves.
Ashbury argues that Purpose has its origins as a useful ‘distraction’ from the damaged reputation that big businesses suffered as a result of the 2008/9 global financial crisis. Remember the Occupy Wall Street protests?
But, rather than restore faith in business, his thesis is that Purpose has unnecessarily divided people; muddied the waters about the role of commercial entities (versus say charities & government); and led to uninspiring and ineffective advertising.
Purpose leads to ineffective marketing
The author takes aim at many of the biggest consumer goods brands (including Pepsi, Heineken, Dove, Gillette) for producing historic marketing campaigns where Purpose was prioritised ahead of commercial effectiveness. He also criticises vague and superficial criteria are applied to ‘Purpose’ campaigns by industry bodies like the IPA and used to justify investment.
A particular low point for brand communications in several western economies was during the Covid lockdowns. To reflect the anxious mood and emphasis how we were “all in this together” you may recall that commercial breaks were filled with turgid virtue-signaling ads cut from same template. It could be argued that instead people would have preferred a bit of humour and distraction.
Purpose makes the world a worse place
You would think that a reduction in marketing efficiency could be forgiven if the societal outcomes are positive.
However, Ashbury highlights that Purpose efforts are often counterproductive.
For example, in their purpose campaigns brands steal attention from charity partners; people become alienated by brands becoming “preachy” and telling them how to think; purpose cynically distracts from unethical corporate tax arrangements; and that Purpose has a habit of fuelling (rather than healing) societal divisions.
On this last point, the author reminds us that a few years ago we would not have viewed brands though the prism of politics. Disney, Bud Light and M&Ms would never have actively sought to publicly “take sides” on hotly debated social issues which are known to polarise.
Of course, that is one of the main arguments in favour of Purpose – to stand up and be counted, to have values even if they don’t resonate with everyone.
But Ashbury argues throughout, Purpose often doesn’t make sense in common sense or commercial terms.
Mass market brands are just that – they need to sell to a broad church of consumers to achieve any great scale.
In the US half your consumers will probably be Republican the other half Democrat. In the UK, half your people were pro-Brexit, the other half “Remainers”.
On issues that have no – or only a contrived – connection to your category, wouldn’t you be mad to create unnecessary division among your consumer base?
Regardless of your position on “Purpose” The Road to Hell is a serious and well-written book that may very well play a key role in how the industry thinking develops.
